Category Archives: Athletics

09.07.13
by

In final pre-hearing response, San Jose takes full aim at MLB’s antitrust exemption

Friday was the last day that the City of San Jose had to file a response to MLB’s filing from a month ago. And so they did, as Joe Cotchett went after baseball’s antitrust exemption. He also brought renowned sports economist Roger Noll to back him up.

The thrust of Cotchett’s argument is that the ATE is limited to the reserve clause and goes no further, citing the Flood, Piazza, and Federal Baseball cases. Naturally, that runs counter to MLB’s argument back in August that the exemption was enshrined by virtue of its long standing and couldn’t be changed except by an act of Congress. What view Judge Ronald Whyte takes when the first hearing is held October 4 is unclear. I’m eager to find out.

In addition to the attack on the ATE, Cotchett argues that the motion to dismiss the case should be denied, because the plaintiff’s claim is ” ‘plausible’ in light of basic economic principles.” Now remember that the original claim was that MLB colluded to prevent San Jose’s competitive bid to get the A’s. The case essentially rests on this particular argument. If Judge Whyte believes the argument is plausible, the case moves forward. If not, the City goes back to square one.

MLB claimed in its filing that the San Jose’s assertion that California’s Unfair Competition Law wasn’t violated because it the supposed violation was an antitrust violation, but because of the ATE, there is no violation. San Jose countered Friday that this ignores the UCL’s additional definitions of “unfair”. Historically, state courts have had difficulty properly codifying what “unfair” truly means, making this yet another test. It’s that very test that should push the case forward, according to Cotchett. Moreover, a chronology of actions/non-actions that have led up to this point was provided. They outline the various stalling measures MLB and the Commissioner’s office have taken to prevent a timely decision regarding an A’s relocation to San Jose, including Commissioner Bud Selig asking San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed to delay a stadium vote.

Cotchett also brought out California Business and Professions Code section 17204, which especially points out unfair competition against cities whose population is larger than 750,000. Of course, that means the statute only applies to four cities: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco. All other California cities have less than 500k population. Does that mean anything? We’ll see.

Finally, Stanford professor emeritus Roger Noll provided a declaration of support for the lawsuit. While it probably won’t have any material bearing on whether or not the case will go to trial, Noll’s presence could become important as a witness if the case does go to trial. Noll’s quote:

“there is no pro-competitive justification for MLB’s refusal to allow the Athletics to San José…There is no conceivable economic justification for protecting the market for one of MLB’s most successful teams (the San Francisco Giants) at the expense of one of the MLB’s least successful teams (the Athletics).”

Noll is referring to the teams’ off-field and box office success, not their respective on-field exploits. I’d like to see which sports economists MLB brings out to argue for the preservation of the antitrust exemption. Then again, even if the case goes to trial, it seems more likely that MLB will be forced to make a deal, instead of the alternative of airing a bunch of dirty laundry and threatening the ATE in earnest. Whoever wins, I’m excited for October 4. It’s a step, even if it’s a halting one.

Armchair antitrust experts, have at it.

08.20.13
by

A’s recommit to Stockton Ports through 2016

Happy news out of the Delta today, as the Stockton Ports and Oakland Athletics have re-upped their Player Development Contract (PDC) that keeps the Ports as the High-A, California League affiliate of the A’s through 2016. There was no drama associated with the announcement because there were no rumors of affiliation moves recently.

STOCKTON, Calif.-The Oakland Athletics and Stockton Ports have jointly announced the extension of their Player Development Contract (PDC) through the 2016 season. Prior to this new two-year extension, the A’s and Ports had signed a two-year agreement April 15, 2010 for the 2013 and 2014 seasons.
“It is great to see so many former Stockton Ports making an impact in Oakland,” said Filippone, the Ports’ president.

“The Athletics are a first-class organization, and we are eager to continue building upon the tradition in Stockton as an A’s affiliate well into the future”.

Media availability has been scheduled for Tuesday August 20th from 6:30-6:55 in the Ports front office with Athletics Assistant General Manager David Forst and Ports President Pat Filippone. A pregame ceremony will immediately take place at 7 p.m. recognizing the extension agreement on the field prior to the Ports/San Jose Giants contest.

The Stockton Ports are one of the A’s five minor league affiliates, joining the Triple-A Sacramento River Cats (Pacific Coast League), Double-A Midland RockHounds (Texas League), Low-A Beloit Snappers (Midwest League), Low-A Vermont Lake Monsters (New-York Penn League)

The California League has proven to be one of the more stable minor leagues in baseball, with the biggest coming in 2005 when the A’s organization dropped Modesto for Stockton and its new ballpark. Bakersfield is getting new digs next year, further contributing to that stability.

08.18.13
by

Talking bobbleheads, giveaways, and expectations

The A’s held a 1973 team reunion on April 27. A raft of greats from that repeat championship team were on hand, including Sal Bando, Blue Moon Odom, Bert Campaneris, and Reggie Jackson, who was honored with a commemorative bobblehead.

While the weekend-long reunion went well, the bobblehead giveaway didn’t. Only 10,000 bobbleheads were available for the 31,292 in attendance, which left many who had waited long hours sans souvenir. It’s becoming a common theme: schedule a bobblehead day, line up a bunch of fans, someone inevitably goes home unhappy. Subsequent bobblehead days for Coco Crisp (in June) and Yoenis Cespedes (yesterday) attracted sellout crowds, leaving even more fans without a souvenir. It’s gotten to the point where if a fan is not in line several hours before first pitch, chances are he’ll go home empty handed.

A’s marketing guys Troy Smith and Travis LaDolce invited into the business offices in Oracle Arena before today’s game. I spoke with them for 90 minutes about all manner of giveaways and marketing strategy. Smith admitted that Reggie Jackson day was a debacle and that there was major room for improvement. To that end they bumped up the orders for both the Crisp and Cespedes giveaways from 10,000 to 15,000, a move they had to make months ahead of time in order to ensure prompt delivery. It’s all part of the guessing game the A’s front office constantly has to play regarding demand.

Collectible pins, which get far less attention than bobbleheads

Collectible pins, which get far less attention than bobbleheads

For instance, take yesterday’s game. Now that we’ve come to expect sellouts on bobblehead day, it’s natural to want greater quantities of items. Because of the parking situation associated with the circus next door at the arena, it was decided that the gates should open at 2:30, 90 minutes before the normal time. Throughout the day A’s marketing staff including Smith and LaDolce were monitoring the situation. D Gate, which appeared to be most heavily impacted, ran out of bobbleheads at 3:27 PM. However, by that point lines had fully dissipated so if you had walked up prior to 3:30, chances were good you’d get one. Chances were even better at the season ticket entrance, which usually is stocked well enough to handle giveaways past the point when other gates run out.

What wasn’t known about the game was that the A’s had only sold 25,000 tickets to the game 24 hours prior to first pitch. An incredible 10,000 tickets were sold as either walkups or online during that period. That’s rather typical these days due to the rather predictable number of advance tickets sold. Some additional amount were sold after Cespy won the Home Run Derby. The problem is that the A’s have to plan everything for each game well ahead of time, including staffing and giveaways. Staffing can be handled with some flexibility. Because of the lead times associated with giveaways, bobbleheads have almost no flexibility (well, except for the actual bobblehead itself).

Two other examples of this phenomenon occurred in the last several weeks. The first was on Grant Balfour Gnome Day (June 16), which was a full standing room only sellout. Walkup sales were so high that in the week prior to the game, the front office worried if only 25,000 would show up. On the Fourth of July, less than 27,000 showed up for a picnic blanket giveaway, which left the marketing crew (and me) baffled because the annual fleece blanket giveaway day typically goes gangbusters.

Now think about the leadup to yesterday. All sorts of things could’ve dampened attendance. Cespedes could’ve been eliminated early in the HR Derby. He could’ve been injured early in the season. The team might not have been in postseason contention. All of this comes into play, and if you’re working off a steady base of about 10-15,000 attendees, it can be difficult to justify bumping it up more. The easy thing to say is to order 30-35,000 right off the bat. Because of the team’s limited marketing budget, 35,000 bobbleheads would’ve negatively impacted some other promotional day, potentially getting rid of a promotion altogether. I asked about other teams that sell 40,000 or full capacity quantities such as the Brewers or Dodgers. Those teams can afford to do it because marginal tickets they sell in the leadup to the game are usually very expensive ($100 or more), so they have headroom to make up for it. The A’s have dynamic pricing, but even then prices might go up only 20-30% in the process. Sponsors attached to each giveaway have little say over the quantity since the giveaways have to be planned as early as November prior to the following season, and they generally don’t directly fund giveaway purchases. I pressed on with 35,000 items. Smith countered that the last thing the team wants is to have 5,000 left over. When I said the items could just be sold in the team store, he said (I’m paraphrasing here) that if that’s the case, they’re not a good promotional tool. The whole point is of giveaways is to get people in the park and to give them a special memento. Sell overstock in team store would defeat the purpose (though I suppose it would give the naming rights sponsor an avenue, hint-hint). Judging from the response at the Coliseum, it’s working whether the quantity is 10,000 or 15,000. He admitted that there may be room for more in the future, but it would all be linked to ticket sales since everything flows from there.

jamesvenes-bobblehead_chart

James Venes’ June chart showing different teams’ bobblehead giveaway figures

The chart above, put together by the inimitable James Venes independently from this article two months ago, shows the wide spectrum of bobblehead quantities for the various teams. The Brewers and Phillies give to capacity, the Giants and Dodgers are pretty close. Then again, those four teams surpass 3 million in attendance annually. The A’s are in the middle of the pack as far as the bobblehead-to-capacity ratio goes. Last weekend I attended the Ken Griffey Jr. day at Safeco Field. Despite a sure sellout crowd (47,000), they had only 20,000 bobbleheads. Like it or not, giving items to around 40% of the house is standard practice.

Over the years the A’s have tweaked the types of giveaways they’ve done. Gone are the cheapo caps of yesteryear as few people care about those. Smith showed me a commemorative back-to-back World Series champs pennant from 1974, to which his mother added “1974” in pen. I asked why there aren’t giveaway pennants anymore. Smith replied that people don’t seem to hold them in any value. I imagine the same thing could be said about the old end-of-season baseball card giveaways (remember how those were sponsored by Mother’s Cookies?). LaDolce had a similar pennant commemorating the A’s 1992 division crown, a moment that reflected the true end of the Haas era. Nowadays the stuff people want are collectibles, with bobbleheads at the forefront.

Troy Smith's assembled scorecards from The Streak. Note the attendance figures from each.

Troy Smith’s assembled scorecards from The Streak. Note the attendance figures from each. Game 20 isn’t there because Smith he was working the scoreboard that day.

When I was asked for future giveaway suggestions, I only had one: an A’s fan. Preferably an action figure or figurine with a gold jersey if that can be done. He/she might be donning a green cape or a Reddick luchador mask. I can’t speak to how racially non-specific it should be or to anatomical correctness. I’m sure it can be done. It would be a great acknowledgement of how faithful the hardcore A’s fan is, a kind of olive branch disguised as an in-joke. I’m no marketing genius, but I think it’d be cool. Accessories could be given away at future games. Besides, if the marketing folks have to order these before knowing what will happen with the notoriously volatile A’s roster, a good bet would be one thing Billy Beane can’t trade: a fan.

Yours truly posing with the three straight American League Championship trophies

Yours truly posing with the three straight American League Championship trophies

We talked about a great number of topics including the upper deck tarps, ballpark sites, the Josh Reddick effect, crossing over from being a lifelong fan to working for the team (as both Smith and LaDolce are), what it means to move from an old stadium to a new ballpark, and other matters. They showed me a prototype Green Day trucker hat to be given away at the end of the month, along with a hint about surprise guest they’re hoping to secure in time for the next Star Wars fireworks night. We didn’t talk about costs to produce items, though some of that information can be found elsewhere. I don’t know if our talk or the feedback from this article will effect change. The team has a fan committee that it listens to regularly. Smith and LaDolce were happy to talk to me at length. They read this blog, as do others around the league. Hopefully the kinks can be worked out to a happy medium. Maybe they can institute a ticket system like the kind employed for concert ticket sales or iPhone/iPad launches. There are ways to get these things in the hands of people that really want them. Until then, we’ll keep waiting in line. Thanks to Troy Smith and Travis LaDolce for inviting me into the inner sanctum for a little bit. I’m sure we’ll have more to chat about in due course. Maybe we’ll be talking action figures.

—-

P.S. – The team and bobblehead manufacturers can take months to work on items and still not get them exactly right. Case in point:

08.15.13
by

Battle: Field

Raiders owner Mark Davis was interviewed during Friday’s home exhibition opener at the Coliseum against the Cowboys. Davis left no doubt about how he felt about sharing the Coli with the A’s, calling the situation a “travesty“.

Just as the A’s and MLB complain about the state of the field when the Raiders invade the Coliseum every August, the Raiders and the NFL complain about the dirt infield dominating the football field. While that has proved to be something of a home field advantage because of Sebastian Janikowski’s well-developed skill in kicking off the brown stuff, the Polish cannon is not going to be around forever. Every other team has either a pristine grass or fake grass field, and frankly the Raiders should have the same conditions in today’s era.

081313-notbad

The baseball configuration 96 hours after the first Raiders game doesn’t look that bad.

Three more conversions to the football setup are planned through the rest of the baseball regular season. Another two or three could occur if the A’s reach the postseason and go deep. There’s an especially tricky period from September 29 to October 6, which will have two Raiders home games sandwiching an indeterminate number of A’s home postseason games. The home dates could be a division tiebreaker, wild card game, part of the best-of-five divisional series.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and the other franchise owners are monitoring the Oakland situation continually, with the knowledge that the Raiders’ lease expires at the end of the season. The ratcheted up rhetoric by Davis and the Raiders’ broadcast team is no coincidence. The state of the field is a wedge issue in lease negotiations for both tenants at the Coliseum, with both teams basically saying that they’d rather have the field in their preferred condition. Of course, the only way to truly get that is to get the other tenant to leave. The A’s and Raiders have a friendly and professional relationship so you won’t see them going after each other. Instead they’ll send their gripes the JPA’s way.

At the moment the Raiders have an advantage over the A’s in their respective lease talks due to their ongoing dialogue with the JPA over Coliseum City. However, the A’s need the field ready sooner because their season starts in April. In fact, lease decisions will have to be made in the fall because decisions have to be made about when to start growing grass and rebuilding the infield, a process that usually starts in late January or early February. And you can bet that MLB, which has stayed hands off for the moment, will have no choice but to get involved if there’s a threat of the A’s being “homeless” for 2014.

Davis has said previously that even a temporary lease at the Coliseum is tied to development of a new stadium at the Coliseum complex, which only serves to make negotiations even more complicated. Perhaps the Raiders can commit with only a tentative agreement on how to move forward with Coliseum City. The feasibility study should be complete in a month or so, whereas an EIR is still ongoing.

With all of the lease factors in play, let’s talk about what has to happen next. A Raiders lease extension will need to be finalized well before the end of the season, probably as early as November. The same goes for the A’s because of the earlier start. If the teams are forced to share, there may be a way to minimize the conversion impact. That would probably include the A’s playing late season games at AT&T Park, allowing for the “permanent” football conversion to commence earlier, or the Raiders playing preseason games in Santa Clara (which makes more sense for the A’s). The JPA has to be careful not to appear as if they’re playing favorites, considering that both tenants don’t need much impetus to bolt. Davis may not have formal discussions with anyone in LA, but he’s probably getting a lot of whispers. We know that Lew Wolff only wants to stay long enough to get a San Jose ballpark built.

For now, let’s shelve the possibility that one of the tenants will move. We’ll have the chance to talk about the more drastic scenarios in posts I’ve scheduled for the weekend. Let’s assume that both will stay for now. What do you think the JPA, Oakland, and Alameda County will need to do to keep the teams happy?

08.12.13
by

Evolution of the concourse

Since the beginning of the recent stadium boom, no part of any venue has undergone a greater transformation than the seemingly utilitarian concourse. Once considered little more than a long corridor fans used to access concessions and restrooms, the humble concourse has expanded to something much greater. Concourses now house a great variety of ways for fans to spend money. Restaurants and lounges now often take up concourse space. And no discussion can be had without recognition of the concourse as a flowing hangout space, whether via the proliferation of drink rails or the simple widening of concourses to invite people to mill around and circulate. Taking cues from modern airport design, stadium operators recognized some time ago that they had captive audiences due to ticket sales, so might as well milk the faithful for what they could. Judging from how fans have reacted, they love it.

The phenomenon seems to be more uniquely American (or at least North American) than anything else due to marketing and expectations of the ticket-buying public. Nevertheless, concourse expansion has taken hold in several new top tier European soccer stadia. The Olympics and World Cup haven’t been touched as much because of the sheer cost of expanding multiple venues, but single-team or single-sport venues continue to follow prevalent trends.

Let’s start our discussion with the concourse we’re most familiar with as A’s fans: the field level concourse at the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum.

concourse-10-coliseum-field_closed-med

At times it can be hard to tell how full the Coliseum is because the field level concourse gets jammed quickly.

I’ve written before about how this concourse has three hallmarks of old stadium design: it has is narrow at 30 feet wide, it has no buffer space for the seating sections, stairwells, or concession stands, and there are no attempts to divide traffic to better manage the flow. While the last issue can be addressed by instituting better queues at the concession stands, there’s still no substitute for greater space. Even during the day the concourse is devoid of light and claustrophobic thanks to fairly low ceilings. There are views of the game at many points, but the overhang is low enough to compromise those views.

Wrigley Field lower concourse has no views of game and no natural light, yet is wide enough to be navigable.

Wrigley Field lower concourse has no views of game and no natural light, yet is wide enough to be navigable.

The oldest ballparks still in use, Fenway Park and Wrigley Field, have large main concourses underneath the bulk of their main grandstand. It works for providing interior space. It doesn’t work in terms of making fans connected the game. Whether that’s important to you as fan, it’s important to teams and architects. They want the best of both worlds – connectedness AND amenities. There’s no perfect solution and some have succeeded more than others in implementing their solutions.

concourse-04-camden_lower2-med

Lower concourse at Camden Yards – closed to the stands, open to the outside

Camden Yards’ design was largely influenced by difficulties encountered at cramped Memorial Stadium. Natural light floods the concourse, though there are few views of the game from the main grandstand concourse. Additional rows of seating sit atop the concession stands on the right of the picture above, with the backs open to allow some crowd noise to enter the concourse.

Stacked concourses at Camden Yards

Stacked concourses at Camden Yards

Target Field's lower concourse down the lines has great views of the game due to a lack of overhanging seating.

Target Field’s lower concourse down the lines has great views of the game due to a lack of overhanging seating.

In a similarly reactionary manner, Target Field was designed to accentuate field views. The finished high ceilings make the lower concourse feel like an airport, for good and ill. The upper deck also has an open concourse.

AT&T Park's Promenade Level is open with the exception of the area behind home plate, which contains the writers' press box.

AT&T Park’s Promenade Level is open with the exception of the area behind home plate, which contains the writers’ press box.

Many parks built in the 2000’s have placed a premium on space behind home plate, leading to level after level of suites and clubs. At times a grandstand can look more like a hotel or office building than a grandstand.

concourse-07-angel-200_level_open-med

Angel Stadium was built with a closed main concourse and a mini-mezzanine that is open behind the seats. Much of Rangers Ballpark was laid out in similar manner.

Then there are a handful of ballparks that went against the grain. Along with Camden Yards, Angels Stadium, Rangers Ballpark, and Busch Stadium have “closed” concourses – largely to bump up capacity.

concourse-12-petco_mall-med

Petco Park tries to have it both ways

Finally, we have the concourses at Petco Park, where the concessions lines are often well-removed from circulation. It creates a sort of mall food court-like feel. There is sunlight and there are views, but is it perhaps too open?

As we’ve moved over the years from utility to feature, we’ve seen in hindsight the number of compromises that have needed to be made to provide openness (to the field) or better circulation and light. Disregarding for the moment any space or footprint constraints at a potential new A’s ballpark, what kinds of concourses would you like to see implemented?

08.07.13
by

MLB asserts antitrust exemption in filing motion to dismiss San Jose lawsuit

MLB filed a motion to dismiss San Jose’s antitrust lawsuit today. The 32-page filing claims that the City’s only agreement with the A’s is the land option on the Diridon ballpark site, and nothing else. This was to be expected.

Perhaps more interestingly, MLB asserted the very thing being attacked, baseball’s antitrust exemption, in the motion. It didn’t have to do this, yet it did and in the process, kind of rubbed the City’s face in it. From page 13:

To withstand a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs must plausibly demonstrate that Defendants committed an act that is “proscribed by some constitutional, statutory, regulatory, common law, or other determinable legal standard.” Id. at 1159. Here, the only independently wrongful act that Plaintiffs have asserted is an antitrust violation. Since Defendants are exempt from antitrust regulation here, there is no “independently wrongful act.”

In addition, MLB says that it is no “stranger” to the relationship between the A’s and San Jose because of baseball’s covenant including the member clubs. One of the key claims is that since San Jose is not a part of MLB, only a city hoping to host a MLB club, the City has no standing. Consider what that message effectively says to all cities: The teams matter, you don’t.

The motion reads as a pretty vigorous defense of MLB’s business practices, and shows that baseball is intent on not allowing those practices to be changed. Plaintiffs will have a chance to respond before the initial hearing, and just like this filing and the initial filing, it promises to be juicy reading.

I’ll let the armchair legal experts sound off in the comments. The best ones will be added to this post.

08.02.13
by

Stand for San Jose launches second lawsuit against City of San Jose

Earlier this week I added a section to the sidebar called Lawsuits so that people could easily find references to the ongoing legal battles among the City of San Jose, MLB, and the Giants. Little did I know at the time that the section would have to be expanded. Yet here we are with now a third lawsuit to keep track of. This time it’s between the same Giants-lawyered astroturf group that filed the first lawsuit, Stand for San Jose, and the City of San Jose.

Santa Clara Superior Court Case 1-13-CV-250372, filed Wednesday, seeks to challenge the transfer of the Diridon ballpark site [thanks John Woolfolk of the Merc] to the Successor Agency (SARA), whose oversight board is composed of San Jose and Santa Clara County representatives. In March, the State Controller ruled that the transfer of the Diridon parcels to the separate Diridon Development Authority was not allowed, which forced the City to hand over the properties to SARA. At the time, SARA had its own objections to the ruling, namely that it felt it had a deal with A’s ownership by virtue of the option inked in November 2011. The Controller ruled that the November deal came after the cutoff date proscribed by AB 1X26, whereas the City said that the date was meaningless. Naturally, the Controller stuck with its original ruling, which led to the June transfer of the land to SARA.

Keep in mind that the land wasn’t transferred or sold to the A’s. It was only moved from one governmental body to another as defined by the new law. The option was signed by the A’s, with the only obligation within the first five years being that the A’s pay a nominal annual fee.

S4SJ’s argument is that the option isn’t valid at all because of the ruling. It’s a strange set of circumstances because in the other lawsuit, S4SJ is challenging the entirety of the ballpark deal on three issues:

  • The EIR was “incomplete” (despite having been certified for two different-sized stadia and with updated traffic studies)
  • The deal would take funds away from schools and city services (hard to argue because per the terms of the AB 1X26, city/county/schools have to be made whole)
  • The deal was done without a public vote (City was dissuaded from holding a referendum by Bud Selig).

Now S4SJ is going after the SARA transfer, but what they’re really after is the option. The option is a basic tenet of San Jose’s lawsuit against MLB, and if S4SJ can disarm that threat the antitrust suit would take a big hit. The argument is that there’s no option because the Controller ruled against the transfer to DDA. But that’s as far as the Controller’s power goes. Once the land ends up in SARA’s hands, it can dispose of it as it sees fit, including to the “late” A’s. The Controller and SARA went back and forth after the final ruling. From the Controller’s final ruling:

The City feels that this finding is “simply form over substance and wastes valuable time, energy and resources to arrive at the same result;” however, the legislation is clear that the oversight board shall have the authority to dispose of all assets and properties of the former redevelopment agency (Health and Safety Code Section 34181 (a)). Any attempt to deny the oversight board its rights would be thwarting the intent of the legislation.

SARA’s argument is that the deal with the A’s was going to happen with either DDA (transfer upheld) or SARA (transfer rejected). Which is exactly what happened. San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed telegraphed the strategy at the time. Did the deal not count because the Controller ruled it was late? Is it a deal because of the technicality the City is trying to argue? Or is it a deal regardless?

The real question is, How quickly can S4SJ get a ruling on this? I have no idea how this lawsuit would proceed through the system, especially because it has a related case just starting its trial phase in the fall. S4SJ attorney Ronald Van Buskirk indicates that the two S4SJ lawsuits will be combined, likely creating further delay. Importantly, the new suit names SARA as a party. SARA didn’t exist when the original lawsuit was filed.

Woolfolk notes that the San Jose Giants aren’t a plaintiff/petitioner, which would presumably protect the lawsuit from the discovery actions taken by the City last summer. Still, it’s clear that the SF Giants are behind the whole thing since this move was timed a few weeks after the antitrust lawsuit – just as the S4SJ lawsuit was filed a month after the A’s option deal was struck. At this point, all of the players must have a good idea what moves can and will be played by their counterparts.

Armchair legal experts, have at it.

—–

P.S. – I have a request or two. Please try to stay on topic, and also try to stay away from the usual “XXXX Sucks” type of discourse. If all you’re going to do is vent, I’ll probably delete it. Bite a towel or something.

07.28.13
by

Giants propaganda invades A’s airspace

Normally when I see a plane in or around the Coliseum I tune it out, because it’s always an ad. I’m not interested.

During today’s game, apparently Budweiser went a bit too far with their plane-flown banner…

 

 

The plane and banner were courtesy of Anheuser Busch/Inbev, not the Giants directly. I suppose they got a two-for-one deal by flying the plane a few hours later over AT&T Park, if that happened. Whatever happened, I’m not outraged by it. I appreciate the moxie required to get that ad in the air. This after Budweiser opened one of its signature “Bowtie Bar” locations inside the Coliseum.

That said, I hope y’all don’t mind if I continuously laugh at the Giants’ current foibles. “Defending” World Champs in name only, not in effort, assholes.

Well, I guess it’s a good thing that the concept of territorial rights only applies to building ballparks on a site, not airspace, radio or TV airwaves, placing team stores, or any other extension of a team’s marketing machine.

One other thing – Support local craft beer!

07.26.13
by

TV rights wave brings A’s along for the ride

When the A’s made the move to basic cable full-time, it was considered to be a solid, though not groundbreaking, improvement for the A’s in terms of revenue. More games would be broadcast (still not all games), and peripheral coverage would would improve via CSN California’s revamped local programming. While the second part would prove true, it wasn’t clear what financial benefits the A’s were getting. As late as last fall the rights fee being paid by Comcast to the A’s was kept hush-hush. I had heard the rights fee started at $15 million with escalators for improved ratings. Whatever the figure truly was, it wasn’t supposed to be terribly competitive within the new TV rights bubble, let alone the mega-deals signed by the LA teams and Texas.

Well, turns out that Lew Wolff and Ken Pries worked out a pretty good deal after all. In Wendy Thurm’s latest post on Fangraphs there’s a table that shows updated TV rights deals (courtesy of Sports Business Journal). The A’s are in pretty decent shape with a deal that works out to $43-48 million per year, which is a lot more than previously speculated or earned in the previous contract. $43+ million still pales in comparison to the Rangers’ or Angels’ $150 million, but those teams were playing a different game from the A’s anyway. The boost is enough to help the team competitively, not enough for management to start making a bunch of stupid personnel decisions. The annual rights fee puts the A’s at 11th or 12th depending on how you’re counting, squarely within MLB’s CBA-defined Top 15 markets.

Of course, the downside is that what looks good now could look puny a decade from now, when the A’s can exercise their first option to renegotiate or extend the CSNCA deal. Several teams will have the opportunity to renegotiate their deals or start their own RSNs before the end of the decade. Chances are good that they’ll do just that. Look for the A’s to follow suit a years later.

How the A's TV deal stacks up against division and crossbar rivals

How the A’s TV deal stacks up against division and crossbay rivals

Despite the added revenue, let’s be clear about something: the A’s are still last in the AL West in terms of TV revenue (and probably radio as well). I suppose that no A’s fan will care as long as the team keeps leading the division in the standings.

—–

Note: The SBJ article dates back to Opening Day. Either I missed it completely or I skipped over the updated figure. Apologies.

07.24.13
by

News for 7/24/13

A lot of smaller items this week that I felt should go into a single post.

  • Added 7/25 1:48 PM – Cowboys Stadium will now be known as AT&T Stadium, at a rate of $17-19 million per year (length unknown). For reference, Levi’s bought the naming rights at the 49ers stadium for $11 million/year, while AT&T Park’s deal was for roughly $2 million/year through 2024. Oracle Arena and SAP Center have deals worth $3 million/year.
  • Added 7/25 1:40 PM – Really good interview on Athletics Nation with A’s Sales & Marketing veep Jim Leahey about how hard it is to sell tickets for the A’s at the Coliseum.
  • Added 8:40 PM – Completely forgot that the A’s have changed the gate opening schedule on Fridays to 4:30. Normally the gates open 90 minutes before first pitch on weekdays, 2 hours before first pitch on weekends. This is to accommodate a request by many fans (including me) to observe home team batting practice, featuring Derby winner Yoenis Cespedes. Home BP is usually held a little over 2 hours before first pitch in most ballparks. For now the time change is only for Fridays. It could change, but remember that for day-after-night games many teams choose to cancel BP. As luck would have it, I’m flying into OAK from Salt Lake City at 3 on Friday, so I’ll have a chance to watch Cespy do his thing.
  • The Chicago City Council approved a controversial $500 million renovation of Wrigley Field, which will include a big electronic scoreboard, increased signage and advertising, and the development of a hotel and office complex across Clark St from the ballpark.
  • The Port of Oakland’s settlement with SSA was approved and accompanied by a celebratory press release by the terminal operator. Though there’s an interesting bit at the end:

The settlement agreement “has nothing to do with the baseball park,” (Port Board President Ces) Butner said. “We have not determined what we are going to do with Howard Terminal yet. We are going to have to figure out what it will be.”

Tim Kawakami also tweeted this:

Kawakami went on to talk about different uses and configurations for the land. Oakland wanted two downtowns with Coliseum City. I guess they can also explore two Coliseums (Colisea?). It’s all fun to think about until somebody has to pay the bill.

  • According to an annual Harris Poll, the A’s are tied for last (27th) in terms of team popularity in MLB. The poll was conducted in mid-June with 2,210 American fans. Predictably, the Yankees and Red Sox are at the top. The Giants rank 10th in the survey, though they’ve moved around a lot over the years.
  • The Giants played a rare doubleheader at AT&T Park, which occurred thanks to a prior rainout in Cincinnati. While the first game was played as a regularly scheduled home game, the second game had the Reds playing as the home team and batting last. A different type of doubleheader is scheduled for this weekend, with the A’s playing the Angels at 12:05 (national Fox TV game) and the Giants hosting the Cubs at 6:05. I’m seriously considering going to both as I’ve done this doubleheader the past two years.
  • SF State professor and longtime Oakland political scenester Joe Tuman is expected to announce that he is running for Mayor today. An announcement is coming at Oakland City Hall at noon. Earlier today I had said something about San Jose’s antitrust lawsuit and MLB’s leverage, which aroused this response from Tuman:
  • Not to be forgotten, Oakland City Councilman Larry Reid has been waiting for a “sign from God” to put him in the race, though his increasingly snarky commentary at public meetings suggests that this is a mere formality. Having both Reid and Tuman in there could make the race entertaining, to say the least.
  • Sacramento arena proponents have accused anti-arena petition gatherers of lies and dirty pool in making claims about the ESC plan. Neither side looks great, as the anti-arena group may have out-of-town support and the “facts” that the pro-arena group are citing are projections, not facts. Yeesh.
  • Despite the City of Detroit officially filing for bankruptcy, it’s likely that $283 million in TIF-based funding for a new downtown Red Wings arena will go through. All sorts of wrong with that.

More if it comes.